Leftist judge thinks he's running the country

Federal Judge Jamal Whitehead just dropped a bombshell, ordering the Trump administration to start resettling over 12,000 migrants whose admissions were paused for—get this—national interest reasons. Pause the tape. A judge, unelected, unaccountable, and definitely not the guy in charge of the country, thinks he can run immigration policy from his cozy Seattle courtroom.

This isn’t judicial review; it’s judicial mutiny.

The Constitution—yep, that pesky document judges love to wave around—says in Article II that executive power belongs to the president. Not some activist judge in D.C. or Seattle. Immigration? That’s the president’s turf. Always has been. Why? Because it’s not just about warm fuzzies and humanitarian hugs. It’s about national security—who comes in, who stays, and who might hurt Americans. That’s not for Judge Whitehead to micromanage over his morning latte.

But here we are. Again.

Whitehead’s ruling tries to turn a pre-pause travel schedule into a legal handcuff on the executive branch. That’s like saying if a cruise ship cancels your trip because the port’s a warzone, they still gotta sail you there because you’ve got a ticket. Newsflash: that’s not how executive discretion works. That’s not how any of this works.

And it’s not just Whitehead throwing punches. Enter Judge James Boasberg, the judiciary’s poster child for overreach. Earlier this year, Boasberg blocked deportations of—wait for it—alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. A gang. His excuse? Due process. He stopped Trump from deporting Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, which, by the way, gives the president crystal-clear authority in times of national threat.

The Supreme Court initially slapped Boasberg down, saying deportation challenges belong where detainees are held, not in his D.C. fiefdom. But then SCOTUS hit pause on further deportations under the Act, showing they’re still wrestling with Trump’s immigration hammer. Still, let’s not kid ourselves: precedent’s on the president’s side. From Trump v. Hawaii to decades of rulings, SCOTUS has been loud and clear: the president—and only the president—calls the shots on immigration. And I’m betting that’s not changing anytime soon.

So yeah, Boasberg can stall. He can grandstand. But the Constitution’s still the boss.

Let’s talk precedent. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), SCOTUS backed the president’s power—straight from Congress—to block foreign nationals if their entry hurts the U.S. Chief Justice Roberts himself said the president has “broad discretion” in immigration. Translation: the Oval Office, not the courtroom, decides who’s in and who’s out.

Mic drop.

This isn’t some ancient scroll. It’s modern law. Binding precedent. And it torches the logic behind these rogue rulings. But when you’re a card-carrying member of the Obama-Biden judicial club, you think your robe comes with a crown.

Let’s cut through the fog. These judges are foot soldiers in a progressive war to gut immigration enforcement. Even with Trump back in charge, the legal booby traps from the Biden era are still exploding in courtrooms nationwide. The activist legal crowd’s got muscle memory, and it’s not fading quietly.
While Trump and his Homeland Security crew are trying to rebuild the wall, enforce the law, and put Americans first, they’re dodging lawsuits, Obama-Biden judges, and activist groups hellbent on keeping the border wide open. These judicial stunts aren’t about justice. They’re about sneaking progressive immigration policies in through the back door.

And who pays the price? American families. Every unvetted migrant or refugee rushed in under these rulings strains communities—think drained resources, spiking crime, or cultural upheaval.
Where’s the media meltdown? Where are the “defenders of democracy” now that judges are playing immigration czar?

Crickets.

They screamed “tyranny” when Trump issued legal executive orders—many of which SCOTUS greenlit. But now, when unelected judges are writing policy from the bench? Dead silence. Their outrage was never about the law. It was about power.

Let’s get real: the president has the constitutional mandate to secure the border, enforce immigration law, and protect the nation. That means he can pause, limit, or shift immigration policies based on threats, priorities, or resources.

That’s why Trump v. Hawaii went the way it did. That’s why the Alien Enemies Act exists. That’s why SCOTUS keeps telling district judges to stay out of foreign policy.

And that’s why Whitehead’s stunt—like Boasberg’s before him—is headed for the Supreme Court’s shredder.

When judges try to override the president on national security and immigration, what do we call it? Unconstitutional. Reckless. And ripe for reversal.

This kind of judicial activism doesn’t just blur the separation of powers—it obliterates it. If these judges don’t watch it, public trust in their institution’s gonna crash harder than a bad stock pick.
SCOTUS needs to bring the hammer. Again.

Until then, a word to the judiciary: you might wear the robe, but you don’t call the shots.
That’s the president’s job. And the Constitution’s still got his back.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call. 

Tweet